“Over a hundred of these fringe protest groups coalesced, as they so often do, into a confused mêlée of conflicting special interests,” reported Yiannopoulos. “They were united, however, in the sheer nastiness with which they expressed their views. To give but one example — as pilgrims sang “Hallelujah”, “Long Live the Pope!” and Benedicto!” demonstrators responded with shrieks of “Nazis!” and “Padophiles, watch out children!”

“So much for the inclusive tolerance trumpeted by the Left,” writes Yiannopolos. ”Here in Madrid was its real face: a sneering, violent mob of self-righteous bullies who thought it appropriate to hurl abuse at children for the crime of having pride in their faith and being excited about by a visit from the Holy Father.”

Arnold Archie Dass was slain in front of dozens of onlookers in the oldest Christian neighborhood in Karachi. In the decades since property values have risen in the neighborhood, members of the “Muslim land mafia” have been harassing area Christians, the Pakistan Christian Post reported; the area is now predominantly Muslim.

Breivik’s worldview, if we can call it that, is not easily characterized. Some have branded him a “Christian terrorist.” He does write that he hopes the “Church gains more or less [a] monopoly on religion in Europe,” but also that “it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings.” In keeping with this latter view, he lauds the work of Princeton University molecular biologist Lee M. Silver, who is an advocate of stem cell research and human cloning. So Breivik can’t easily be described as a religious fundamentalist.

Breivik also wants a big cut in aid to developing countries in the hopes that this will reduce world population by 4.5 billion — an exercise in population control I don’t think the pope, much less Scandinavia’s Lutheran Church, would favor. Without pause, he voices admiration for the United States’ Tea Party, while calling for more regulation of capitalism and a “Scandinavian light model” of redistribution, including “giving women more incentives to have children in the form of various welfare incentives.”

One could call him a fascist, and he does subscribe to Arian racial theory. But Breivik also makes fulsome denunciations of Hitler and belittles today’s neo-Nazis as fools. He is certainly hostile to Islam and quotes many right-wing authors and bloggers who obsess about the coming of “Eurabia.” But his rants against feminism, Marxism, and Western sexual mores are little different from those made by Osama bin Laden. He doesn’t call for Western women to be put behind the veil. But he estimates that 50 percent have slept with more than 20 men and are thus “sluts,” thinks society should “discourage” all women from having full-time careers, and blames “current destructive matriarchal policies” for most of what he sees as wrong with Europe.

As I said: this guy is NO Christian… and has an important problem of ideological coherence.

Related articles

Norway attacks: Was Breivik a Christian terrorist? – Christian Science Monitor (news.google.com) To be sure, among those who identify Christianity with the teachings, behavior, codes, and life of the early church, sometimes called “primitive Christianity,” the acts of Breivik have less than nothing to do with the Acts of the Gospels. His logic is seen as a deep distortion, of, say, the spirit of the Beatitudes: “Blessed are the meek … blessed are the peacemakers … blessed are the poor in spirit…”… “Are we capable of seeing the distinction between a dude acting alone with, at this point, no following and a large global movement with many leaders and supporters?” Mollie asks finally. ”Supporters of Islamic extremism are a minority in most Muslim countries. But there’s a dramatic difference between the level of support a killer such as Osama bin Laden had and the level of support a killer such as Breivik has. Media coverage should not ignore that distinction when pushing the moral equivalency meme.”

Why Islamist terror dwarfs Breivik’s brand: Almost nobody supports “Christianist” violence (nydailynews.com):Breivik’s ideology does not represent the same sort of threat that Islamism does because it is not shared by nearly as many people, governments or institutions. Aside from a handful of anonymous Internet postings, there have been no avowals of support for Breivik’s mass murder. No influential Christian preachers have praised what he did. There were no celebrations in the streets, nor has any government applauded his attempt to “save” Europe from “Islamization.” The only organizational backing for Breivik’s massacre appears to have come from a 12th century crusader outfit called the “Knights Templar,” which, as far as we know, exists nowhere but in his own deranged head.

Contrast that condemnatory response with Saddam Hussein‘s remarks after 9/11 – an attack carried out by a transnational terrorist organization sheltered by the then-government of a sovereign state. Saddam said that “the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity.” Crowds of Palestinians, meanwhile, took to the streets and handed out candy.

While these reactions were certainly the exception among most Muslims, smaller-scale terrorist attacks committed against coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on civilians in places ranging from London to Madrid to Peshawar, Pakistan, are regularly legitimized by Islamic clerics who claim huge followings.

Ahmadis are heretic Muslims because they believe that the only possible and admissible jihad is a peaceful one (even a “jihad of love), and never a violent one, except in extreme persecution times, exception that is not even recognised by the whole movement.

Indonesia’s justice system is once again criticised for failing to impose lengthy sentences on people responsible for sectarian violence and crimes against minorities. The latest example came yesterday when a District Court in Serang, Banten Province (Java), handed down lenient sentences against 12 Muslims extremists for their role in a brutal assault against Ahmadi Muslims in February in Cikeusik.

The defendants received sentences of between three and six months in jail, Islamic Lawyer Team (TPM) said. Both the prosecutor and the judges said that Ahmadis (a Muslim group deemed heretical by mainstream Muslims because they do not view Muhammad as the last prophet) “provoked” the assault and so bore some responsibility.

For one of the prosecutors, M Yunis, Ahmadis “systematically provoked riots”. In reality, pressures from Muslim extremists were behind the light sentences.

Human rights activists and members of civil society groups have been outraged by the court’s decision when compared to the gravity of the facts.

Like this:

The others are all corrupt. And Pope Benedict is a “cowardly, incompetent and corrupt Pope“. He is a “cultural Christian“, something that would be very interesting to the political elites: the religion only as a “culture”, but meaning no more to the human being.

In order to stop Islam, Breivik argues, you need to put together a broad coalition. Can the Christian churches become part of it? Breivik explains that he was not taken to baptism by his quite agnostic and upscale parents, but at age 15 elected to be baptized and confirmed in the Norwegian Lutheran Church. He later became persuaded, however, that Protestant churches have sold out to a leftist and pro-immigration agenda, and that they should merge into the Catholic Church, which has at least maintained a modicum of European tradition. However, by continuing the dialogue with Islam, “Pope Benedict has abandoned Christianity and all Christian Europeans and is to be considered a cowardly, incompetent, corrupt and illegitimate Pope”.

It will be, accordingly, necessary to get rid both of the Protestant and Catholic leaderships and to call a “Great Christian Congress” in order to establish a new European Church. This Church will be granted a religious monopoly in the new Europe but in turn, Breivik writes, “the Church and church leaders will not be allowed to influence non-cultural political matters in any way. This includes science, research and development and all non-cultural areas which will benefit Europe in the future. This will also include all areas relating to procreation/birth/fertility policies and related issues of scientific importance”. In short, Breivik’s is a cultural Christianity, an instrumentum regni for a new political elite which would confine the Church to purely spiritual and cultural matters.

Add to this that he doesn’t know anything about what it means to be a Christian, that he doesn’t really believe in anything and that he isn’t quoting the Scriptures or stating that he wanted to save “Christian souls” (wouldn’t be the adequate means, at all), and I can safely ask: why this guy is named a Christian?

According to the report, written by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, such payments contravene US law, which prohibits funding of any person who “engages in, or has engaged in terrorist activity.